Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    7:22 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: What do we do with all the surplus people? Back to Topics
YDraigGoch

Champion Author
Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2012 2:17:57 PM

In 2008, John McCain tried to warn us that “those jobs are not coming back”. An astute observation that has proven to be correct. The jobs that were lost can be done by low paid workers in cheaper countries.

And that is the way it should be. As we move on into more advanced technologies, we should be creating jobs that demand skills that people in lesser countries do not have. We should be leading the way.

Except we didn’t keep up. We didn’t invest in schooling like Germany, Finland, Sweden, Japan and so on. We didn’t invest in science and math like others did. Today, almost half the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) students in America’s colleges are from other countries. But here, we have the “what a SNOB!!” attitude about higher education. So we have a shortage of advanced skills in STEM related work, and lots of people who used to make the old stuff.

So, since we can’t make stuff anyone wants any more, there are not enough jobs to keep us all working.

Which brings me back to my original question; What will we do with all those surplus people?

Compounding the problem, we have a $16 trillion debt. We can’t put them ALL on welfare. But we cannot simply leave them in the streets. Desperate people will do anything to survive. It will becomes a war zone out there
For years, science fiction has predicted this day. From Logan’s Run to Soylant Green, they have predicted how it will be handled..

Anyone have any ideas on this. As a friend of mine likes to say, “Hell’s a coming”.


[Edited by: YDraigGoch at 11/9/2012 2:18:54 PM EST]
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,288
Points:2,794,220
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 11, 2013 6:16:25 PM

ldheinz - "I read an article about how our lower crime rate can be directly attributed to the legalization of abortion. Sort of a preemptive death penalty, so to speak."

There's that. I also seen a theory that it's due to removing the lead from gas.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,302
Points:2,950,595
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Jan 11, 2013 8:54:15 AM

The military doesn't need cannon fodder anymore.

I read an article about how our lower crime rate can be directly attributed to the legalization of abortion. Sort of a preemptive death penalty, so to speak.
Profile Pic
1OILMAN
Champion Author Alabama

Posts:2,269
Points:221,160
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Jan 10, 2013 2:43:35 PM

Send them to Afghanistan? Give them a M-16 and send them on their way.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,770
Points:3,031,495
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jan 10, 2013 2:38:13 PM

There might not be any "surplus" people in the not-so-distant future.
So the people that are here had better keep up some decent skills and abilities, you will be needed and called on for more later.

 

[Edited by: I75at7AM at 1/10/2013 2:39:47 PM EST]
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 4:53:55 PM

How about the millions who choose to be employed, insured, working, taxpaying citizens...

And CANNOT?

Or don't those exists in the fantasy world some people occupy?
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 12:16:43 PM

streetrider: "You have no clue my friend."

If I have no clue then the UN, wsj and msnbc are also clueless. They, and many others, all believe you are wrong. Sorry, but the facts don't lie. So far, I'm the only one who has presented any facts. Where are yours?

streetrider: "A documentary is not an education it is a reference an education allows one to analyze the facts if they spend enough time collective all the facts and not the spin."

I can only respond that you are lacking the education that you define. You have not been exhibiting any ability to analyze facts. I'm not even sure that you understand what a "fact" is.

[Edited by: turbosaab at 12/7/2012 12:20:46 PM EST]
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,346
Points:150,135
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 9:46:46 AM

Turbo
You have no clue my friend. Well lets see, i know you dont believe in history as much as spin. A documentary is not an education it is a reference an education allows one to analyze the facts if they spend enough time collective all the facts and not the spin.

Lets walk through stores what is on the shelf is not american made not even 10%, although I am sure I can find an internet store that will only handle US made goods.

The trade imbalance has absolutely no corresponding tie or direct correlation to China's GDP. It is an independent variable. Hence we are a big importer from many countries, not the global leading manufacturer.
Trade deficit come to mind?

They only thing we lead on is the simple fact that we manufacture takes 1 person to their 8.
Perhaps you should google the charts and look at the reference source.

Profile Pic
airfresh
Champion Author Massachusetts

Posts:17,722
Points:1,015,735
Joined:Aug 2007
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 8:56:56 AM

This topic reminds me of a few others who thought like this OP....


Everything that can be invented has been invented. - Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899

Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895


The modern computer hovers between the obsolescent and the nonexistent. - Sydney Brenner in 1927

I think there is a world market for maybe five computers. - IBM Chairman Thomas Watson, 1943

I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year. The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957



There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home. - Ken Olson (President of Digital Equipment Corporation) at the Convention of the World Future Society in Boston in 1977



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former. - Albert Einstein


At least the last one may turn out to be true.



[Edited by: airfresh at 12/7/2012 8:58:11 AM EST]
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 8:20:41 AM

streetrider: "China surpassed us on GDP (that is all the goods and services produced).
Since they are not a service oriented based economy, its mostly goods that were manufactured."

You have no clue what you are talking about. Please read the sources I provided. They will be a valuable addition to your TV education.

streetrider: "Why, because we keep importing goods and exporting wealth."

It is true that we have a negative balance of trade. But, how is that germane? We manufacture more goods than any other country in the world. We also consume more manufactured goods than any country in the world.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,346
Points:150,135
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2012 11:50:36 PM

Turbo

China surpassed us on GDP (that is all the goods and services produced).
Since they are not a service oriented based economy, its mostly goods that were manufactured.

big deal the world has changed a lot since 1949, your right and so has the wealth of the country. we use to loan everybody money now we borrow.

Why, because we keep importing goods and exporting wealth.

I can't post you a link from the documentary off the history channel.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,302
Points:2,950,595
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2012 10:15:53 AM

You do realize that in 1949 the manufacturing capacity of Europe and Asia had just been destroyed by war, right?

YDraigGoch, there are already programs to help the poor and disabled. If some people choose not to use them, they have that right. The concern is more about what to do about people who choose to be unemployable.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 10:43:34 PM

streetrider: "Independent economic reasearch shows china's GDP grew surpassed us in 1996."

Do you remember your comment? You said, "china surpassed us in 1996 in manufacturing and has increased the difference every year since". That was "manufacturing"; *not* GDP. It seems that I demolished your original assertion, so you changed the subject. Nice.

streetrider: "in 1949 we produced 90% of the global goods consumed, currently its at 15-20%."

Big deal. The world has changed quite a bit since 1949. In 1980 we produced 22%, currently it is at ~20%. (I was at least kind enough to provide a source in my last post.) The point is that our share of total *manufacturing* has not changed much in over 30 years.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,346
Points:150,135
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 10:27:24 PM

"Streetrider"
"you need to get out more".

Independent economic reasearch shows china's GDP grew surpassed us in 1996.

Yes there is some manufacturing coming back.

in 1949 we produced 90% of the global goods consumed, currently its at 15-20%.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 6:42:10 PM

YDG: "Are we destined to be like those places?"

No. But, two things have to change for that to be true. First, we need to develop a super cheap (to consumers), clean, abundant and deployable energy source. Second, we need to restructure our safety net and how we pay for it. Everything else can stay the same. I'll leave it up to you as an exercise to figure out how those two changes will solve our problems for centuries to come.

YDG: "Will we all learn to justify not caring, like some people obviously already do?"

No. There are no large groups of people who "don't care". There are a few sociopaths. You simple-mindedly lump anyone who has any knowledge of economics into that group. The economics don't work with our current government/systems/entitlements. If the two changes I listed above are made, then the future will be secured and we can get out from under the tottering, inverted Ponzi pyramid.

And yes, a miracle has to happen for #1 to come true. But one can dream....



[Edited by: turbosaab at 12/5/2012 6:43:57 PM EST]
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 6:18:44 PM

The point here is not Social Security, Medicaid, who is to blame or not to blame.

The point here is that people like my wife's cousin have always been with us, and the numbers are growing rapidly in spite of a so called "safety net".

We are deep in debt. At some point, the numbers will catch up and overwhelm us. There will be millions of R and C in America, just as there are in third world countries.

Are we destined to be like those places? Will we all learn to justify not caring, like some people obviously already do?

I'm not the slightest bit worried about my situation.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 11:38:53 AM

streetrider: "china surpassed us in 1996 in manufacturing and has increased the difference every year since."

You need to get out more.

"Just take a quick look at the numbers. According to United Nations data, the U.S. is still the largest manufacturing country in the world. In 2009, American manufacturing output (in real terms) was nearly $2.2 trillion. That’s about 45% larger than China’s, at just under $1.5 trillion. (For statistical reasons, I chose to use figures that include mining and utilities as part of manufacturing.) Though China, of course, is growing very quickly, the U.S. has also maintained its global share of manufacturing, at 20% in 2009 compared to just over 22% in 1980. What’s more, American manufacturing is becoming more productive. In 2009, productivity in U.S. manufacturing increased by 7.7%, more than any other country followed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics."

See here too if you want a more lefty spin.

"Yet America remains by far the No. 1 manufacturing country. It out-produces No. 2 China by more than 40 percent. U.S. manufacturers cranked out nearly $1.7 trillion in goods in 2009, according to the United Nations."

Here's some raw numbers 2007 - 2009.

And China's rapid growth is beginning to sputter.

"But rising labor costs, concerns over government-sponsored I.P. theft, and production time lags are already causing companies such as Dow Chemicals, Caterpillar, GE, and Ford to start moving some manufacturing back to the U.S. from China. Google recently announced that its Nexus Q streaming media player would be made in the U.S., and this put pressure on Apple to start following suit."

[Edited by: turbosaab at 12/5/2012 11:41:29 AM EST]
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,302
Points:2,950,595
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 10:02:49 AM

streetrider - "china surpassed us in 1996 in manufacturing and has increased the difference every year since. "

I regularly buy stuff from China on eBay. I recently bought a USB SD drive for 30 cents with free shipping. Clearly, that's below cost. I have no problem with China sending foreign aid to the US in that form.

streetrider - "We call our selves christians? "

Not me.

YDraigGoch, what do we do with unemployable people? Offer them training in useful jobs, and if they won't do them cut off their benefits. Can you say "Do you want fries with that?"? There are also jobs stuffing boxes with stuff bought on the internet, as well as delivering those boxes. If they don't like those jobs, they can learn new skills, like I constantly have to do.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,346
Points:150,135
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 10:13:07 PM

china surpassed us in 1996 in manufacturing and has increased the difference every year since.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 9:07:50 PM

YDG: "Because America has lost the ability to lead technologically, there will not be enough jobs to support everyone."

Why do you declare this like it is a fact? Why do you think that the trends can't be reversed? More patents were issued to US companies and individual than the rest of the world combined until, unsurprisingly, 2008. Since then, the number of patents issued to US companies and individuals has declined relative to the rest of the world but they have still increased slightly in number every year. We had an opportunity to reverse the trend this year but we failed to unseat the anti-business, anti-technology President. I don't know if we can withstand another 4 years of this, but perhaps we will still be able to reverse the trend after he's gone. Also, we are still the manufacturing leader of the world. That too is slipping, but like patents, it may be possible to reverse the trend with a change in direction 4 years from now. We can't do much about job growth for the next 4 years, but job growth in the future can certainly deal with your "surplus people". I guess we have four years to increase the quality of our potential workforce for when they are called.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,346
Points:150,135
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 8:20:48 PM

We can make stuff as soon as we decide not to import from impoverished slave worker countries.
We need to decide what we want our society to look like?

We call our selves christians?
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 8:08:03 PM

The point is not Social Security, Medicaid, who is or isn't to blame. That is simply grist for the politically brain damaged.

The point is that there are people like R and C out there right now, and the numbers will do nothing but grow. Because America has lost the ability to lead technologically, there will not be enough jobs to support everyone. And some people will need a LOT more support than others.

So, do we all become selfish, uncaring people like some here already have become? Where do we draw the line? We already have become immune to the ads asking for help for sick children, starving people, tortured animals and so on. Are those ads making us more insensitive?

As you can see, even if you do everything correctly, like R and C, fate plays nasty tricks. There is no guarantee. You could be next. So could I. My wife is slowly dying with an auto-immune disease. So I plan on working until I am at least seventy. Maybe longer. I'm putting money away so that she will be able to live as long as possible without suffereing. A powerful incentive. I'm no Ginrich. I'm not going to run away.

But there is no guarantee that I can keep going. Last year, I took a terrible fall, and broke a lot more stuff. I'm pretty much healed now, but who knows. I don't.

And neither do you.

So, since we don't know which one of us will take the next fall, I ask again.

What do we do with all those people who do fall?

Or maybe we should all ask "What will you do with me?"
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,302
Points:2,950,595
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 6:14:35 PM

turbosaab - "He believes that "defeats the primary purpose of the system." "

So the primary purpose of the system is redistribution of wealth? That means it's not insurance at all. It's theft. Which agrees with the Ponzi scheme nature of Social Security as well.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 4:43:50 PM

MTM: "Perfectly reasonable."

You should take that up with rjhenn. He does not agree with you. He believes that "defeats the primary purpose of the system."
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,849
Points:321,985
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 4:32:56 PM

"OK, as long as we do away with the payments cap on Social Security payouts."

Perfectly reasonable.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,302
Points:2,950,595
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 3:58:08 PM

MiddletownMarty - "Let's do away with the wage cap on Social Security taxes."

OK, as long as we do away with the payments cap on Social Security payouts.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,849
Points:321,985
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 3:02:00 PM

"In order for Social Security to come even close to being Constitutional, it MUST treat all citizens equal. Anything else is pilfering property from one group to another. "

I agree. Let's do away with the wage cap on Social Security taxes.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,302
Points:2,950,595
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 2:29:03 PM

MahopacJack - "In order for Social Security to come even close to being Constitutional, it MUST treat all citizens equal. Anything else is pilfering property from one group to another. "

Quite true. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to ALL citizens, not just poor people. Those wishing to rape the rich should be careful in establishing legal precedents that undermine equal protection, as the rich are very likely to turn them around on the rapists.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,574
Points:1,854,030
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 10:45:53 AM

rjhenn, >>Doesn't the Tea Party, like you, worship the rich and just kind of wish the poor would disappear? They're just sooo inconvenient.<<
***
Most of the Tea Party advocates recognize the Government spends money recklessly and very inefficiently. As a result, when it attempts to do good, government usually fails miserably.

Contrary to what many media outlets claim, the Tea Party is mostly made up of the middle class and both major parties. Its major opponents are those who directly benefit from the absurd spending. More often than not, it is the very rich [who determine tax and other policies through their political contribution] who want the spending to continue as it benefits them directly.

How often do posters on these very boards complain about corporations being in bed with the politicians? Many of these corporations are led by people who benefit directly from government intrusions in business.

As an example, Warren BufFett is a majority holder in Berkshire Hathaway. Berkshire Hathaway owns 100% of the Burlington Northern, Santa Fe Railroad. Guess which railroad benefited directly when Obama decided to not go ahead with the Keystone Pipeline?

Another example, the wealthy CLAIM they want to pay more in taxes. Costco, who has a number of large Berkshire Hathaway directors on its board just borrowed a huge amount of money to declare a special dividend payable in December to avoid paying HIGHER taxes on a payout next year. The then CEO of Costo (now retired) will benefit by around $4,000,000 by this one action alone! Was he a Republican determined to pay as little taxes as he can? No,he was a speaker at the Democrat National Convention in September!

Finally, many on the left own the media outlets such as ABC, CBS, and NBC, or enormous financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs, or CitiBank. Do you sincerely believe they would be acting for or against their best interests? Simply put, all of us have been subject to the gigantic hoax into believing the Democratic Party (in particular but the Republicans are equally corrupt but less in numbers) is for the middle class. The tipping point is whether or not they are acting to redistribute their wealth as they so often claim or further entrench themselves in a very corrupt system?

For me, the answer is very clear.

Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,574
Points:1,854,030
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 9:57:23 AM

rjhenn, >> The Social Security system was, originally, an attempt to limit poverty in old age, not a pension plan for rich people.<<
***
In order for Social Security to come even close to being Constitutional, it MUST treat all citizens equal. Anything else is pilfering property from one group to another.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 7:56:12 AM

rjhenn: ""Cost effective" means, basically, "it may cost more, but it's worth it"."

We're talking about cost here, not outcome. The point was that a single payer system will necessarily cost more. Thanks for confirming the point. Besides, cost effective health care leads to more "surplus people".

rjhenn: "And "stories of failure" exist in virtually any system."

Canadians routinely come to the US for medical procedures; not the other way around.

rjhenn: "The Social Security system was, originally, an attempt to limit poverty in old age, not a pension plan for rich people."

That's probably true, but when the system took money from all wages below some cap and *promised* to pay a benefit at some time in the future, it became a "pension plan" for *all* who paid in. The benefit was always based on the level of wages up to the cap. If you remove the cap, it is reasonable that the benefit be scaled up to the level of wages that were taxed. Similarly, means testing of benefits would be breaking a promise that was made a long time ago. The only fair way to change the system is to start with workers who are sufficiently removed from retirement so they are not encumbered by "the promise" and can plan their retirements adequately.

rjhenn: "Doesn't the Tea Party, like you, worship the rich and just kind of wish the poor would disappear? They're just sooo inconvenient."

No. The Tea Party is not beholden to the rich in any way. It appears that all you know about the Tea Party you get from left-wing rags that try to smear a legitimate popular uprising against big government.

rjhenn: "But, like most on the left and the right, you believe that there is no such thing as balance, just your side and the other side."

We already have the most progressive tax system in our nation's history. The wealthy already pay for most of our government's operation. This isn't about "balance"; this is about wealth envy and class-warfare politics.

rjhenn: "What "early cashing"? Currently, all outlays are covered by revenues from taxes and the interest on Treasury bonds."

That's simply not true. Shortfalls in the system (deficits), that have already been occurring for 2 years are paid by cashing securities (IOU's) in the "lock box". Long term securities with locked in higher rates are redeemed at a loss to pay current bills.

Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,302
Points:2,950,595
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 4:34:17 AM

ldheinz - "Yeah, that's what Bernie Madoff said. You've just given an excellent description of the criminal enterprise known as a Ponzi Scheme. BTW, there is no "trust fund". A REAL trust fund for Social Security would require $22 trillion, and the US government does not have any such fund. Any Ponzi scheme eventually fails, as it requires ever increasing numbers of investors to make up for the lack of income from the non-existent trust fund."

rjhenn - "IOW, all forms of insurance are Ponzi schemes, since they don't have the cash to pay off everything they've committed to, but have it invested and earning more money. In fact, all banks are also Ponzi schemes, since they don't have all the money that's been deposited with them in their vaults just waiting to be withdrawn. "

Wow, what a Straw Man! REAL insurance programs (and banks, for that matter) have assets to cover ALL their obligations. It would be illegal for them not to do so. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme because it doesn't. You've already admitted that it is temporarily surviving by using current income to pay its commitments, a defining characteristic of a Ponzi scheme. What you incorrectly refer to as Social Security's "trust fund" is actually their operating fund, what to a REAL insurance program would be the equivalent of petty cash.

rjhenn - "Doesn't the Tea Party, like you, worship the rich and just kind of wish the poor would disappear? They're just sooo inconvenient."

And yet another Straw Man. The Tea Party is overwhelmingly middle class people who recognize that runaway spending by the federal government is going to bankrupt the country. They also recognize that ever increasing taxing of the rich to supply poor people with their "needs" will just make everyone equally poor. They'd rather that everyone be equally rich.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,288
Points:2,794,220
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 3:12:34 AM

ldheinz - "Yeah, that's what Bernie Madoff said. You've just given an excellent description of the criminal enterprise known as a Ponzi Scheme. BTW, there is no "trust fund". A REAL trust fund for Social Security would require $22 trillion, and the US government does not have any such fund. Any Ponzi scheme eventually fails, as it requires ever increasing numbers of investors to make up for the lack of income from the non-existent trust fund."

IOW, all forms of insurance are Ponzi schemes, since they don't have the cash to pay off everything they've committed to, but have it invested and earning more money. In fact, all banks are also Ponzi schemes, since they don't have all the money that's been deposited with them in their vaults just waiting to be withdrawn.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,288
Points:2,794,220
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 3:11:11 AM

turbosaab - "I think you used the words "almost always". That is hardly supported by my citations. There are certainly some cost effective practices as there are certainly some cost saving practices. But, overall, increasing preventive care necessarily increases cost over the long run. That was the point."

"Cost effective" means, basically, "it may cost more, but it's worth it".

"Each of them illustrated failures of the system for various segments of the population. I have not seen any evidence to support your 2010 source that claims "there are finally beginning to be some signs of meaningful progress towards a patient-centered healthcare system in Canada." In fact, the stories of failure continue unabated."

That 2010 source is the source of the 2008 & 2009 reports that one of your sources was ultimately based on. And "stories of failure" exist in virtually any system. Including ours.

"How? The planned benefits are still paid in full to all segments of society. It just doesn't provide quite the same windfall for the system."

The Social Security system was, originally, an attempt to limit poverty in old age, not a pension plan for rich people.

"What does that have to do with the TEA Party? That's the entirely made up liberal view (again displaying your roots.)"

Doesn't the Tea Party, like you, worship the rich and just kind of wish the poor would disappear? They're just sooo inconvenient.

Of course, the best path would be to help the poor become better off, through education and training. That's not easy enough for the left, and not hard enough, on the poor, for the right.

"Again, just liberal lore. Transfer of wealth destroys the fabric of society by encouraging an entitlement society."

"Transfer of wealth" is just conservative lore. Aggregation of wealth at the top destroys the fabric of society by limiting opportunities for everyone else. The best course is the intermediate, balanced, course.

But, like most on the left and the right, you believe that there is no such thing as balance, just your side and the other side.

"The changes to the law and the poor economy have resulted in the early cashing of long-term securities to pay benefits. That reduces the expected yield on those securities and undermines the long term solvency of the system."

What "early cashing"? Currently, all outlays are covered by revenues from taxes and the interest on Treasury bonds.
Profile Pic
fracknsave
Champion Author Grand Rapids

Posts:1,666
Points:58,000
Joined:Mar 2012
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 10:51:30 PM

Interesting topic. I guess that once [the] shooting and looting starts, darwin says all the stupid people will die first and after that, only the people who thought ahead will be able to protect themselves from those who did not.

[Edited by: fracknsave at 12/3/2012 10:53:04 PM EST]
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 10:09:21 PM

YDG: "That should make Turbosaab happy. Then he won't have to pay anything."

I thought you said you didn't LIE. If you don't lie then you are are either incredibly uninformed or naive or both. All of the services that I mentioned should be readily available to him and, as far as I'm concerned, he's entitled to them. If the story is true, then I wish him the best.

If you ignore the people who see through your b.s. and call you on it then you are no better than MichIggy. That's called "living in a bubble". Why don't you just man up and defend yourself. (It would help if you used a few facts!)
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 7:57:51 PM

Oh, my. Turbo is REALLY in the bubble this time.

First of all, I do NOT fabricate stuff (aka LIE). That, sir, is YOUR technique. Your apology will be accepted, assuming you are man enough to deliver one (which I doubt).

The story is totally true. Not one word is a lie.

Just because you are used to lying for political expediency does not mean the rest of us stoop that low

The obstacles to getting aid under ANY circumstance have increased dramatically, mostly due to right wingers like Turbosaab who insist these problems do not exist.

That is the way people like him treat everything.

We don't have to prepare for global warming because it does not exist.
We don't have to do anything about racisms because it does not exist.
We didn't have to stop smoking because that didn't cause cancer
We don't have to treat people like R because that problem does not exist.

We don't have to do anything at all. Nothing! Everything is just fine.

And when you point out a REAL situation, they hide behind calling you a liar.

Well, that is the coward's way of looking at things. All through history, cowards have always denied everything to allow themselves the luxury of not dealing with a conscience.

I imagine that R will eventually get the help he needs. If he doesn't die first.

That should make Turbosaab happy. Then he won't have to pay anything.

I am now considering putting this vicious little man on ignore.

Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,302
Points:2,950,595
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 11:56:34 AM

ldheinz - "We SHOULDN'T be paying current obligations from current income. Current income should be invested so that it can pay FUTURE obligations, and current expenditures should be coming from the trust fund created from payments that were made decades ago. That's the way that REAL insurance works."

rjhenn - "Sorry, but that makes no sense. What's the difference between paying current obligations from current income, investing any excess, and putting all of current income into investments and withdrawing from those investments to pay current obligations. The trust fund is invested, and earns interest. That's why it's still growing, even though current income (aside from that interest) isn't enough to pay current obligations."

Yeah, that's what Bernie Madoff said. You've just given an excellent description of the criminal enterprise known as a Ponzi Scheme. BTW, there is no "trust fund". A REAL trust fund for Social Security would require $22 trillion, and the US government does not have any such fund. Any Ponzi scheme eventually fails, as it requires ever increasing numbers of investors to make up for the lack of income from the non-existent trust fund. The US government does have the advantage that it can acquire new investors at gunpoint. The only reason that it currently has an OPERATIONAL surplus is that most baby boomers are currently in their prime earning years. In ten years or so, they will be expecting payouts, and there aren't enough suckers, er, young people to cover the payments. Social Security WILL fail, and when it does all hell will break loose. At this point it's inevitable.

[Edited by: ldheinz at 12/2/2012 11:57:51 AM EST]
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 10:24:00 AM

rjhenn: "The very first paragraph of your third source says: "It is well established that preventive care reduces the prevalence of disease and helps people live longer, healthier lives."

I think you used the words "almost always". That is hardly supported by my citations. There are certainly some cost effective practices as there are certainly some cost saving practices. But, overall, increasing preventive care necessarily increases cost over the long run. That was the point.

rjhenn: "So where do any of those say they're failing?"

Each of them illustrated failures of the system for various segments of the population. I have not seen any evidence to support your 2010 source that claims "there are finally beginning to be some signs of meaningful progress towards a patient-centered healthcare system in Canada." In fact, the stories of failure continue unabated.

rjhenn: "Which defeats the primary purpose of the system."

How? The planned benefits are still paid in full to all segments of society. It just doesn't provide quite the same windfall for the system.

rjhenn: "The whole system is currently built on "everyone pays the same rate, except the well-off. A Tea Party wet dream."

What does that have to do with the TEA Party? That's the entirely made up liberal view (again displaying your roots.)

rjhenn: "As for "direct transfer of wealth program", how about "stabilization of society program", which benefits the wealthy as much as anyone.

Again, just liberal lore. Transfer of wealth destroys the fabric of society by encouraging an entitlement society.

rjhenn: "How? Nothing's changed."

The changes to the law and the poor economy have resulted in the early cashing of long-term securities to pay benefits. That reduces the expected yield on those securities and undermines the long term solvency of the system.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,288
Points:2,794,220
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 3:28:29 AM

turbosaab - "No. No. No."

Proving, once again, that you don't bother to actually read either what you're responding to or the sources you try to use to refute. The very first paragraph of your third source says: "It is well established that preventive care reduces the prevalence of disease and helps people live longer, healthier lives. Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of preventive care can guide policy-makers to allocate scarce resources. This synthesis reviews the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of clinical preventive care. Key findings include: although many preventive services are a good value (defined as costing less than $50,000 to $100,000 per Quality Adjusted Life Year), only a few, such as childhood immunizations and counseling adults on the use of low-dose aspirin are widely regarded as cost-saving."

So, as I said: Even if preventative care is not always cost-saving, it is almost always cost-effective.

"That's not what I read. See here, here, and here."

So where do any of those say they're failing? In fact, the second of those bases some of it's conclusions on a report that "In both 2008 and 2009, the Euro-Canada Health Consumer Index ranked Canada 30th of 30 countries (the U.S. was not included in the sample) in terms of value for money spent on health care". That's ONLY in "value for money spent on health care". In fact, the 2010 Euro-Canada Health Consumer Index says "that while serious problems remain, there are finally beginning to be some signs of meaningful progress towards a patient-centered healthcare system in Canada." That hardly sounds like "failing".

"That's true. But, an argument can be made that the safety net for the wealthy is higher than that of the less well off."

Well, it is, but should it be. Aren't the wealthy the ones most able to care for themselves?

"Nonetheless, it is really just a matter of fairness. We have a benefit system that is based on average income up to a certain income limit. If we take off that limit, then it is only fair that we pay a benefit based on unlimited average income."

Which defeats the primary purpose of the system.

"Without that, the system will soon run ridiculous surpluses that will ultimately lead to somebody proposing that the poor and middle class not pay into the system at all. Then it would become a direct transfer of wealth program. That's just a liberal wet dream."

If the system begins to run "ridiculous surpluses", the rational argument would be to reduce the tax rate. The whole system is currently built on "everyone pays the same rate, except the well-off." A Tea Party wet dream.

As for "direct transfer of wealth program", how about "stabilization of society program", which benefits the wealthy as much as anyone.

"You're right, but that wasn't my point. In January, 1940, the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund was established as a separate account in the United States Treasury to hold the amounts accumulated under the old-age and survivors insurance program. That was the "lock-box" I was referring to. Changes to the program beginning in the 1980's have jeopardized the earnings in the "lock-box" and set the system on the road to failure."

How? Nothing's changed. The trust funds are still separate accounts, invested in Treasury securities. The "lock-box" is still there.
Profile Pic
1OILMAN
Champion Author Alabama

Posts:2,269
Points:221,160
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2012 2:48:07 PM

Two items:
1. What were they invested in that in just 3 years the 'financial' crisis destroyed their savings? Either they had very little savings or they were terrible investors. Maybe both?
2. Why should bills stop coming because you get sick or can not work?
Or is that your point?
Stop giving to the "takers" and the "needy" can be covered. It is the former who "steal" from the later.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2012 1:27:40 PM

YDG: "R is flat broke, crippled and unable to work. Both R and C paid taxes all their lives, and now, because of the financial crisis, he has to struggle get medicaid. Forget SS help. That fund is BROKE. The family helps as much as they can, but they do not dare take away from their own savings because things will certainly get worse."

This is a flat-out fabrication. Under the circumstances you described, R is easily eligible for medicaid, disability, probably unemployment, food stamps, and very likely, other federal and state programs including utility discounts and property tax abatement. If he is not availing himself to those programs then it is out of pride or ignorance. Why isn't his family making sure he gets the services that are available?

YDG: "Which brings me back to my original question; What will we do with all those surplus people?"

The first step would be to make an accounting of how many people really fall into that category. Your "tens of millions" figure was clearly pulled our of thin air.

The second step would be to make sure that *only* those people who cannot work have access to those services.

The third step would be to make sure the "safety net" was secure (for the number of people in need). This would be something I would support increased tax rates to fund. But, I would guess that the funding for those services is more than adequate now (see step #2).

Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2012 12:49:49 PM

Let me present exhibit A. My wife's cousin, who I will refer to as R.

Three years ago, R and his wife C were doing fine. In their middle 50s, they had money put away towards retirement. R did construction work, C was a book keeper. Their son was getting ready to graduate high school, and prepared to go to college.

Then C got cancer. Even with good insurance at work, there were expenses. They cut everything to the bone, but still the bills came in. As they desperately fought the cancer, they began to eat into the money saved.

One year ago, R was diagnosed with chronic arthritis, gout and osteoporosis. He tried for a long time to keep working, until his hips gave out. So C had to keep working. With cancer slowly killing her.

R wound up in the hospital for surgery on his now crippled hands, and a possible hip replacement. Suddenly, his intestines gave out. He almost died. He now has a colostomy bag until the gut heals. He is confined to a wheel chair.

C died two weeks ago. But that did not stop the bills.

R is flat broke, crippled and unable to work. Both R and C paid taxes all their lives, and now, because of the financial crisis, he has to struggle get medicaid. Forget SS help. That fund is BROKE. The family helps as much as they can, but they do not dare take away from their own savings because things will certainly get worse.

Now, multiply that story in various forms across tens of millions of people, and you will begin to understand the seriousness of the situation.

R and C are real people. And what happened to them could happen to any of you.

So, again I ask, what do we do with the people who cannot (not will not) work?

Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2012 9:59:32 AM

rjhenn: "Sorry, I'm looking at reality, not opinions."

Unfortunately, you probably wouldn't see reality if it slapped you in the face.

rjhenn: "Even if preventative care is not always cost-saving, it is almost always cost-effective."

No. No. No.

rjhenn: "They have problems, but they're hardly failing."

That's not what I read. See here, here, and here.

rjhenn: "Then again, some argue that Social Security is a safety net, and that one shouldn't depend on it providing for your retirement."

That's true. But, an argument can be made that the safety net for the wealthy is higher than that of the less well off. Nonetheless, it is really just a matter of fairness. We have a benefit system that is based on average income up to a certain income limit. If we take off that limit, then it is only fair that we pay a benefit based on unlimited average income. Without that, the system will soon run ridiculous surpluses that will ultimately lead to somebody proposing that the poor and middle class not pay into the system at all. Then it would become a direct transfer of wealth program. That's just a liberal wet dream.

rjhenn: "That is not true. Social Security surpluses have been invested in Treasuries since the program began."

You're right, but that wasn't my point. In January, 1940, the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund was established as a separate account in the United States Treasury to hold the amounts accumulated under the old-age and survivors insurance program. That was the "lock-box" I was referring to. Changes to the program beginning in the 1980's have jeopardized the earnings in the "lock-box" and set the system on the road to failure.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,288
Points:2,794,220
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2012 3:36:09 AM

turbosaab - "I provided you with the sources. Go argue with the experts."

Sorry, I'm looking at reality, not opinions.

"That's what I said. With "free" care they will go to the doctor for imagined and "preventative" care. Preventative care has been proven to prevent very little. That's expensive, and it takes up valuable resources. Once health care is considered an entitlement, it will be treated as such."

As usual, you don't pay any attention to what's actually said, but only hear what you want to. I said "People without insurance go to emergency rooms if they have a cold. That's expensive."

People with insurance go to see their doctor, not emergency rooms. That's less expensive. And you charge co-pays, so they don't see it as "free" care. Then there's your odd statement about preventative care. Even if preventative care is not always cost-saving, it is almost always cost-effective.

"Canada's health care system is failing."

They have problems, but they're hardly failing.

"Removing the wage cap only partially solves the problem. But, I have a very bad feeling about that. Will the higher wage earners ever get their "investment" back? To make the system anything other than a social welfare program or a wealth transfer mechanism, the higher earners should expect a higher benefit when they retire. This will negate most of the benefit you are counting on. Means testing would also be unfair to the high wage earner who paid into a system all his life with the "promise" of a retirement benefit."

Then again, some argue that Social Security is a safety net, and that one shouldn't depend on it providing for your retirement.

"Funds were to be taken from payroll checks and kept in a "lock box" to pay future retiree benefits."

That is not true. Social Security surpluses have been invested in Treasuries since the program began.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,288
Points:2,794,220
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2012 3:34:00 AM

ldheinz - "We SHOULDN'T be paying current obligations from current income. Current income should be invested so that it can pay FUTURE obligations, and current expenditures should be coming from the trust fund created from payments that were made decades ago. That's the way that REAL insurance works."

Sorry, but that makes no sense. What's the difference between paying current obligations from current income, investing any excess, and putting all of current income into investments and withdrawing from those investments to pay current obligations. The trust fund is invested, and earns interest. That's why it's still growing, even though current income (aside from that interest) isn't enough to pay current obligations.

Of course, if this was private sector investments, your broker would probably encourage that just to drive up commissions.

"A sales tax discourages spending, and therefore encourages savings."

On the other hand, economic growth depends on spending.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,302
Points:2,950,595
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 5:12:13 PM

Whatever you subsidize, you get more of, and whatever you tax, you get less of. When you tax income, people like it less and produce less. When you subsidize unemployment, people like it more and work less.

While I do believe in some sort of unemployment insurance, its current form is counterproductive.

This is one of the reasons that I favor a National Sales Tax over a flat tax for replacing our current income tax. A sales tax discourages spending, and therefore encourages savings.

As for the surplus people, why do they feel that they shouldn't have to learn new skills? I have to learn new skills all the time in order to stay employable.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,302
Points:2,950,595
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 1:49:01 PM

KansasGunman - "Jeffery Dahmer summed it up by saying the meat tasted kinda sweet."

What, like you've never heard of Long Pork?
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 10:52:10 AM

Along that same line, I suppose we could turn them all into batteries (see The Matrix), and thereby solve the world's energy crisis.

But the unfunded spending is most certainly the root cause of what ails us. Where did we (as in all of us) go wrong?

Back in the 60s, there was this great idea that the country could give a helping hand to people down on their luck. Allowing people to totally fail was not good for the country, as that usually led to the inability to get back on their feet. So, food stamps, medicaid, Social Security Disability funding, and other such features were implemented. And paid for as we went.

But politics being what they are, both sides went nuts.

The Democrats kept adding freebies to the list. Unions demanded higher and higher pay for unskilled labor, and demanded government contracts employ union people. This raised the costs. A LOT!

But we handled it by raising taxes. As long as the "pay as you go" philosophy existed, it was not a problem. People being what they are will stop spending when the bills get too high.

But the Republicans, looking for an issue, began the "Tax and Spend Liberal" bumper sticker campaign. Under Reagan, we cut taxes dramatically. But we did not stop the spending. And this threw a monkey wrench into the economy. People being what they are just LOVE a bargain. And what better bargain than to have all these wonderful social programs without having to pay for it all?

The result, after over 40 years, is today's economy. We are broke and deep in debt. It takes money to make money, and we don't have any. We are deep in debt, so we can't borrow to generate new jobs to purchase our way out of this.

But we keep on making more people, and the welcome mat is still up on the Statue of Liberty. More people, and no way to give them jobs. That leaves a surplus to feed, house, clothe, educate and so on. With no money in the coffers, we will have to borrow more to do all that. But the credit card is maxed, or so we are told.

They are here. Unlike the "reality" shows on TV, they will not simply disappear. And there are more every day.

How about mandatory sterilization? Whoo, I bet THAT will set off a howl.

Profile Pic
KansasGunman
Champion Author Kansas

Posts:22,106
Points:2,117,980
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 6:34:56 PM

"Topic: What do we do with all the surplus people?"

.....

Well, I've heard they freeze pretty well...ever hear of Soilent Green, the 1973 movie based on Earth in despair in 2022 (kind of a reality check as 2022 is fast approaching with costs skyrocketing).

Jeffery Dahmer summed it up by saying the meat tasted kinda sweet.

And...best of all (gotta love it) won't be any more on-going fights over Roe verses Wade as abortions become a part of the past with people producing children virtually for a source of protein "Urban farming" as I like to call it.


[Edited by: KansasGunman at 11/29/2012 6:39:53 PM EST]
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 5:10:29 PM

streetrider: "My interpetation is all promises are unfunded, the deficit proves it."

That is not completely correct. In theory, the SS system was not intended to be unfunded. Funds were to be taken from payroll checks and kept in a "lock box" to pay future retiree benefits. The system was also stacked against retirees because the retirement age when benefits became available was just beyond the average life expectancy at the time. So, as the system was set up, it would take in a whole lot more money than it would pay out, thus assuring the system's longevity. (Of course, the early "investors" who lived long enough paid pennies on the dollar worth of benefits!) During the ensuing years changes were made to the program that took away that funding advantage. The biggest one was and continues to be increased life spans. Contributions have increased slightly and the age when benefits can first be collected has increased slightly, but more and more people are collecting benefits much, much longer. Another problem is that additional, "supplimental" benefits are now being paid out of the same pot of money. Add into that the fact that the lock has been taken off the lock-box and you have the mess we're in today. The result of all that is a set of "promises" ($22T) to current workers that can't possibly be paid from the receipts that are projected to flow into the system under the current withholding system. Thus, the SS system is "unfunded" by circumstances, not by design.
Post a reply Back to Topics